Archers

[nato]

Hmm bombardment does have some unintended side effects. Like some are saying, its not too great if archers can destroy terrain improvements or city buildings.

I guess its a tradeoff ... I think it might still be worth doing though.

the only problem with this so far is that they're not worth the 20 shields in comparison to the spearman (better defenders), and warriors aren't worthwhile if archers cost the same as them. i think i need to rethink this one.

Thats some good balancing thinking. However, I wouldn't think its too big a problem if warriors aren't worthwhile. They are meant to be very early throw-away units. I think its ok if they get made totally obsolete.

[The Rook]

Face it, Civ3's combat, just doesn't lend itself to this kind of detail. Bombard denotes bombardment. That implies siege weapons, things that go BOOM, buildings fall down and people die. Archers ARE a direct attack unit. Sure, they may not be aiming at a specific person, but they ARE aiming at specific units. It's not like artillery, which stands very far out, and needs not even see the enemy.
You can change your archers if you want, but I'm leaving mine alone. Besides, the AI won't use them if you make them bombard units.

[zulu9812]

Actually, longbowmen were a lot like artillery, postioned well behind the front line, firing over a long arc.

[The Rook]

Originally posted by zulu9812
Actually, longbowmen were a lot like artillery, postioned well behind the front line, firing over a long arc...

...at a particular group of enemy. They weren't just lobbing arrows into the air not knowing where they would land. That's why archers don't have bombard, they ARE units that directly attack other units.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Trip
Personally, I think Archers should be an early bombardment unit (along with Longbowmen). Their hand-to-hand skills were highly limited, and were reduced to a long range "softening up" kind of usage (one they were very good at though, mind you). So what do you guys think? If you disagree with my view why do you think so?

What I did was give the Archers bombard ability, range 0. This gives them a free shot on any unit attacking it's position, but doesn't allow them to bombard like a Catapult. If you also add the ZoC abilty, it makes it a fairly good backup for a defensive unit, like a Spearman, or Pikeman.

[Captain]

yes, fire arrows... i think I'll change my opinion on giving archers a bombard range. destroying improvements and terrain sounds feasible, and realistic. it makes the early game much more vicious, you better go out and hunt down those archers, or else!!!

does ZOC just mean 1 free potshot total? or 1 per enemy passing by? i upped all hp x2 so i'm not sure it's that deterrent. does a successful ZOC hit stop the enemy unit though? didn't it do that in smac? what does it do here?

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Trip

The problem I have with Archers/Longbowmen having real attack/defense values is that in reality, Archers never really could destroy an enemy formation. Likewise, if a melee (or equivalent, ala Musketmen) got within attack distance, then the Archers were seriously screwed. Perhaps giving them a defense of 1 would be more appropriate... the way I have things now with defense of 0 you'd be able to capture Archers... a strange and improbable situation.

Do a search for "Agincourt" and read how English longbowmen decimated the best French knights cutting them to pieces. But those were longbowmen.

Many archers and crossbowmen (a possible unit we can add or change) had some proficiency with swords. In fact, musketmen/musketeers had even less melee combat capability - why they fought WITH pikemen covering them. Together, the could be quite offensive in nature, as with the famed Spanish tercios.

But Firaxis doesn't seem to know that. Or a lot of other things about Military History.

Immortals actually were spear-armed archers.

So, I see your concerns. But it applies more so to musketmen. And of all the problems and historical idiocies with the game this one isn't in the top fifty.

Note: Check out Plutarck's LWC mod here or elsewhere. He gives archers a bombard strength of 2, with no range, and a 1 rate of
fire. I believe that lets them fire a volley at an atacker before the melee. Check it out.

BTW, I made longbowmen 4.3.1 an English UU. All others upgrade to crossbowmen.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Coracle
Do a search for "Agincourt" and read how English longbowmen decimated the best French knights cutting them to pieces. But those were longbowmen.

Originally posted by Trip
And besides, the battle of Agincourt was won mainly due to the fact that the French (mostly knights) marched through a big ol' patch of mud (just after a nice rain... lovely for horses) with forests on either side, bogged down, heavy metal armor on, while the English Archers rained down a hail of arrows upon them. They had no defense (how you effectively impliment this in Civ III is beyond me... I'm just talking about this particular battle) and were subsequently slaughtered. The English victory was more due to the rain and the mud than their troop quality and ability.

Ahem...
I'm quite well-versed in military history my friend.
And yes I know they were Longbowmen, but by that time the two terms were synonymous.

Many archers and crossbowmen (a possible unit we can add or change) had some proficiency with swords. In fact, musketmen/musketeers had even less melee combat capability - why they fought WITH pikemen covering them. Together, the could be quite offensive in nature, as with the famed Spanish tercios.

But Firaxis doesn't seem to know that. Or a lot of other things about Military History.

Immortals actually were spear-armed archers.

So, I see your concerns. But it applies more so to musketmen. And of all the problems and historical idiocies with the game this one isn't in the top fifty.

Note: Check out Plutarck's LWC mod here or elsewhere. He gives archers a bombard strength of 2, with no range, and a 1 rate of
fire. I believe that lets them fire a volley at an atacker before the melee. Check it out.

By the time Musketmen roll around, they are the norm. Yes, battles in the 16th and 17th centuries used Pikemen to cover (Cossacks a very good game that shows this) the Musketmen, but the "Musketmen" unit is included to represent from the first units with gunpowder, all the way up to just before the American Civil War. You didn't see Napoleon's lines covered with Pikemen, now did you? If you really wanted to fix that problem, then you could just increase Musketmen's attack capability, and drastically decrease their defense. Then you'd need Pikemen.

And yes, I think the unrealistic battle system is my main concern. This is just one aspect, and I think by modding Archers and Longbowmen how I did helps alleviate the problem. Not fix it by any means, but make things more realistic.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by The Rook
...at a particular group of enemy. They weren't just lobbing arrows into the air not knowing where they would land. That's why archers don't have bombard, they ARE units that directly attack other units.

So you're saying that Artillery was shot at nothing in particular?

Artillery fired at specific armies/units just as Archers and Longbowmen did. How would you define "direct" attack? An attack that AIMS at something? Or an attack where the units actually "engage" each other? Archers never "engaged" any units besides other Archers... unless their initial defense was destroyed, which would be Pikemen in this game. I feel that the actual ROLE of Archers/Longbowmen throughout history is too similar to that of Artillery to ignore. Therefore, I made Archers/Longbowmen bombard units instead. You can disagree if you wish, that's just my interpretation on military history.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Captain
yes, fire arrows... i think I'll change my opinion on giving archers a bombard range. destroying improvements and terrain sounds feasible, and realistic. it makes the early game much more vicious, you better go out and hunt down those archers, or else!!!

does ZOC just mean 1 free potshot total? or 1 per enemy passing by? i upped all hp x2 so i'm not sure it's that deterrent. does a successful ZOC hit stop the enemy unit though? didn't it do that in smac? what does it do here?

How I made the units was to give Archers a bombard of 3, ROF of 2, and movement of 2. That makes them quite useful in the role they were used in (run them out to fire off some volleys then dash back in before the enemy got within range). Maybe I'll make them ZOC also... but that would make them a very valuable unit so I might have to increase the cost... decisions decisions.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Captain
yes, fire arrows... i think I'll change my opinion on giving archers a bombard range. destroying improvements and terrain sounds feasible, and realistic. it makes the early game much more vicious, you better go out and hunt down those archers, or else!!!

does ZOC just mean 1 free potshot total? or 1 per enemy passing by? i upped all hp x2 so i'm not sure it's that deterrent. does a successful ZOC hit stop the enemy unit though? didn't it do that in smac? what does it do here?

Well actually ZoC is pretty much useless, unless they've changed it in the latest patch. ( I still haven't played a game with it yet). Before though, the free shot would happen so rarely that I can't be sure exactly how it works. I suspect it's one shot total per unit, but I can't be positive. And it only takes off one hit point, whenever they do actually hit something. The bombard free shot is more reliable, but it too only takes off one hit point. Quite often though I found that made a difference. I usually put my modified Archer/Longbowman in all cities and key positions, along with another unit. It doesn't give a big advantage, but it helps.

[The Rook]

Originally posted by Trip

So you're saying that Artillery was shot at nothing in particular?

Artillery fired at specific armies/units just as Archers and Longbowmen did. How would you define "direct" attack? An attack that AIMS at something? Or an attack where the units actually "engage" each other? Archers never "engaged" any units besides other Archers... unless their initial defense was destroyed, which would be Pikemen in this game. I feel that the actual ROLE of Archers/Longbowmen throughout history is too similar to that of Artillery to ignore. Therefore, I made Archers/Longbowmen bombard units instead. You can disagree if you wish, that's just my interpretation on military history.

Yes, artillery is fired at a particular area, not particular targets. In the modern day, we can be a little more precise with it, but back then, they just knew the general range and let the shells fly. Do you think if you were sitting in a trench during WWI, and an artillery shell landed on your head, they were aiming directly at you? No, they were aiming at your trench. You just happened to have the bad luck of sitting in it. Archery is simular, in the sense that you can lob an arrow, and it will drop it onto an unsusspecting enemy, but you have to be much closer. That means the enemy can engage you. If you want to group pikemen with your archers, then that's being realistic. Giving archers bombard ability isn't. If you want to play an unrealistic game, then by all means do so, but don't come here, solicit opinions, and then roll your eyes at people who don't support your views.

I'm not arguing the ins and outs of historical archery or artillery. What I am saying is the game does not support what you are trying to accomplish. Archers are not meant to bombard.

[Austin]

re: Agincourt.

The bowmen did NOT win this battle singlehandedly by massed arrows mowing down frenchmen as if they were machine guns or something, that's a common urban legend.

What really decided that battle was the fact that the French tried to cram a whole bunch of men into a small space. The English cleverly picked a defensive position bracketed on either side by forest that was just big enough for their army. The French tried to squeeze a much larger army into the same space, and their men wound up getting in each others way so much that the English could easily pick them off.

The effect that the arrows did have is it encouraged the Frenchmen in the rear ranks to try and press forward (along with the natural desire of a medieval man of war to get into the fray). This meant the men in the front ranks facing the English were getting tripped up by the men behind them, and the English could spear them with their lances as they floundered around.

Re-run Agincourt in an open field and the English would have been destroyed.

Austin

[Zurai001]

Originally posted by Trip
Ahem...
I'm quite well-versed in military history my friend.
And yes I know they were Longbowmen, but by that time the two terms were synonymous.

They were far from synonymous. Only the English ever fielded longbowmen, and because longbows required far more extensive training than crossbows or shortbows, they never fielded very many. Almost the entirity of the English longbowmen troops were drawn from Welsh hunters who had been using a bow since their childhood. Everyone else used crossbowmen; less effective, much cheaper and more plentiful.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by The Rook
Yes, artillery is fired at a particular area, not particular targets. In the modern day, we can be a little more precise with it, but back then, they just knew the general range and let the shells fly. Do you think if you were sitting in a trench during WWI, and an artillery shell landed on your head, they were aiming directly at you? No, they were aiming at your trench. You just happened to have the bad luck of sitting in it. Archery is simular, in the sense that you can lob an arrow, and it will drop it onto an unsusspecting enemy, but you have to be much closer. That means the enemy can engage you.

They fired at your trench... your unit. If there were still Archers in the time of trenches, and you had some of them lobbing arrows at that trench, and you happened to be hit, is that any different than being hit by Artillery, except for the differences in range?

If you want to group pikemen with your archers, then that's being realistic. Giving archers bombard ability isn't. If you want to play an unrealistic game, then by all means do so, but don't come here, solicit opinions, and then roll your eyes at people who don't support your views.

Oh, forgive me Mr.-I-know-military-history-this-is-how-it-is-so-you-are-wrong.
I'm sooooo sorry, I'll go read my history books more and never preach wrongly to this forum ever again.



If you have such a problem with my views then state your opinion and leave. No need to get belligerent and scold me. We take different interpretations on how things were... notice how I said...

You can disagree if you wish, that's just my interpretation on military history.

My interpretation. Just like your interpretation.

Look who's claiming to know it all and scolding those who don't agree...

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Austin
re: Agincourt.

The bowmen did NOT win this battle singlehandedly by massed arrows mowing down frenchmen as if they were machine guns or something, that's a common urban legend.

What really decided that battle was the fact that the French tried to cram a whole bunch of men into a small space. The English cleverly picked a defensive position bracketed on either side by forest that was just big enough for their army. The French tried to squeeze a much larger army into the same space, and their men wound up getting in each others way so much that the English could easily pick them off.

The effect that the arrows did have is it encouraged the Frenchmen in the rear ranks to try and press forward (along with the natural desire of a medieval man of war to get into the fray). This meant the men in the front ranks facing the English were getting tripped up by the men behind them, and the English could spear them with their lances as they floundered around.

Re-run Agincourt in an open field and the English would have been destroyed.

Austin

Yes, yes, yes I know!

The Archers helped demoralize the oncoming knights through the bottleneck. When the English light infantry raced forward and slaughtered them, the rest of the French retreated and everyone behind them ran away also. I'm not advocating every one of the 5,000 French casualties had an arrow through their chest... I was simply stating that the main cause of the English victory was the weather, terrain, and troop types.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Zurai001
They were far from synonymous. Only the English ever fielded longbowmen, and because longbows required far more extensive training than crossbows or shortbows, they never fielded very many. Almost the entirity of the English longbowmen troops were drawn from Welsh hunters who had been using a bow since their childhood. Everyone else used crossbowmen; less effective, much cheaper and more plentiful.

What I meant is synonymous in the way they were used, not what they were. They were used for the same purpose, only the English Longbowmen had much greater range, and penetrating power.

[The Rook]

It's obvious either you can't read, are stoopid, or both.

As I said, I am not debating military history. We are talking game mechanics. You created this thread. You were looking for opinions, or so I thought. Maybe you were just lloking for a pat on the back so we can all see how much of a genius you are.

Yes, if you can fire an arrow 1500 yds away, you could probably hit the trench. Of course, me being smarter than you would put something over the trench to render it useless. You would then have to go get a proper bombardment device to kill me.

Try looking up bombard in the dictionary. If you STILL can't understand why arrows are not bombardment devices, then I give up.

As far as your "you play your way, I'll play my way" remark. Read my very first post on this thread. I was not in the least beligerent until you rolled your eyes at me. So quit your whining. 75% of the people on this forum are "well-versed" in military knowledge. It's not a big deal really. You don't get a cookie.

[Jon Shafer]

Yes, I was looking for opinions. Not "this is the way things work if you don't agree you're stupid".

Look up "bombard"? Okay, I did.

Definition of "bombard", courtesy of Dictionary.com:

bom·bard Pronunciation Key (bm-bärd, bm-)
tr.v. bom·bard·ed, bom·bard·ing, bom·bards

To attack with bombs, shells, or missiles.

Definition of "missile":

mis·sile Pronunciation Key (msl, -l)
n.

An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.

Hmmm. Can we agree that an arrow is a projectile?

Just because I included a smiley doesn't mean I'm trying to pick a fight. When people are trying to teach me how the battle of Agincourt went, then I feel free to respond telling them that I already know how it went. I wasn't even talking to you...

If you want to be immature and flame go ahead. I don't really care, I asked for opinions. I didn't ask for someone to teach me about their interpretation of game mechanics. You have your opinion on how it should be, and so do I. Are you incapable of accepting that? Do you have to "beat me"? Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm trying to defend my position. If you aren't able to argue over something like this without flaming me, then please quit responding.

[Catt]

My biggest concern when modding is to avoid creating imbalances between human and AI -- particularly mods that will only be effectively utilized by the human against the AI.

So my question to those of you who have modded the archer and/or longbowman to be bombard units -- has the AI used them as bombard units effectively, or is this just another arrow in the quiver of the human player's tactical options (so to speak ).

Catt

[The Rook]

Originally posted by Trip
Yes, I was looking for opinions. Not "this is the way things work if you don't agree you're stupid".

Look up "bombard"? Okay, I did.

Definition of "bombard", courtesy of Dictionary.com:

bom·bard Pronunciation Key (bm-bärd, bm-)
tr.v. bom·bard·ed, bom·bard·ing, bom·bards

To attack with bombs, shells, or missiles.

Definition of "missile":

mis·sile Pronunciation Key (msl, -l)
n.

An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.

Hmmm. Can we agree that an arrow is a projectile?

Just because I included a smiley doesn't mean I'm trying to pick a fight. When people are trying to teach me how the battle of Agincourt went, then I feel free to respond telling them that I already know how it went. I wasn't even talking to you...

If you want to be immature and flame go ahead. I don't really care, I asked for opinions. I didn't ask for someone to teach me about their interpretation of game mechanics. You have your opinion on how it should be, and so do I. Are you incapable of accepting that? Do you have to "beat me"? Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm trying to defend my position. If you aren't able to argue over something like this without flaming me, then please quit responding.

You WERE talking to me, you directly quoted me, and it had nothing to do with the battle of Agincourt. Smiley's are just like body language. They carry meaning, and if you dont mean what they imply, you shouldn't use them. Putting that aside.

An arrow could be defined as a missile, yes. But, so are bullets. Musketmen, riflemen, and infantry should have bombard values too then. Spit balls are missiles too, so you could make a unit of school children with bombard values. Your argument seems to be that because longbowmen arc their arrows, they should have bombard values. As the dictionary points out, bombardment has nothing to do with arcing.

The weapons that Civ3 gives bombardment values to are all weapons that have greater range and damage than arrows. even the fabled longbowmen at Agincourt were firing at units that could have enganged them if it weren't for other factors. That is why Archers need pikemen to protect them.

IMHO archers in Civ3 function as intended.

I am not trying to convince you you are wrong. What I am saying is the developers defined bombard to be units that carry some weight behind it. This is obvious in the fact that bombardment can destroy terrain improvements. Arrows are not effective at doing that.

You can change your archers if you like, but you asked for opinions and I gave you mine. That's all I have to say.

[hetairoi22]

Definition of "bombard", courtesy Mirriam Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: 2bom·bard
Pronunciation: bäm-'bärd also b&m-
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1686
1 : to attack especially with artillery or bombers
2 : to assail vigorously or persistently (as with questions)
3 : to subject to the impact of rapidly moving particles (as electrons)
synonym see ATTACK
- bom·bard·ment /-m&nt/ noun

See, it really helps to look in the right dictionary

[Zachriel]

I think we're being "bombarded" with too much information.

[Jon Shafer]

Bad joke aside...

It is true that there is no really good way to simulate Archers' bombardment in Civ, but I feel that this gives the best feel of realism. Maybe Archers couldn't really destroy roads with arrows (fire or not), but units can't really move infinitly with railroads for free either, can they? A better way would be to change things to "ranged fire" and "melee attack" or something, but that's waaaay to complex to ever see in Civ. Maybe a better way would simply to give Archers a bombard range of 0, and leave it at that. However, I feel that detracts from the "softening up" purpose of Archers and Longbowmen.

And @ hetairoi22. Ya don't keep searching for a definition of a word until you find the meaning you want. Sheesh ya bum. Reminds me of the old saying: "Figures don't lie, but liars will figure."

[Zachriel]

The softening up can be simulated easily by moving the archer's movement to after the attack. If the archer is in a city, it would attack the adjacent enemy unit, then the spacebar could end the turn, rather than the archer moving out into the open. In open combat, the archers attack from within the stack and postpone their movement, the footmen clean up any enemy survivers and move into the newly opened map square. Finally the archers follow.

[Jethro83]

I don't mind the idea of archers providing bombardment. I think that maybe bombardment should be divided into two categories. The bombardment of units, and the bombardment of terrain/city improvements. Both archer and catapult should have both abilities, but one does it better than the other.

The archer should have stronger bombardment against units, and weaker bombardment against improvements. The catapult should have stronger bombardment against improvements and weaker bombardment against units. The longbow should probably then upgrade into a field cannon at Metallurgy, while the catapult upgrades into the Trebuchet at Invention, and then the Trebuchet should upgrade into a bombard cannon at Metallurgy. Then both should upgrade to Artillery, and then both categories merge.

Just my opinion about bombardment.

[The Rook]

If you could convince Firaxis to make terrain destruction optional, then I could see having bombard for archers. I dont agree with the multiple rate of fire, and higher movement rates though.

I think my biggest beef with the archer/bombard idea is the "softening" up aspect. Arrows are great for softening up units in the open, but they are poor at softening up entrenched units. Bombarding a city with an archer could have some effect, if they were using fire arrows, but historically, how effective were flaming arrows? I am more inclined to beleive that flaming arrows find more use in Hollywood than they do in the history books. I am not an expert on historical archery though. Still, flaming or not, arrows can be defeated easily by a good solid fortification, and this makes bombardment inappropriate for them.

[Jon Shafer]

Perhaps the XP will give more options. *Crosses his fingers*

I can sooner see Archers firing off a quick volley doing 1 or 2 points of damage to a unit, then directly engaging it and destroying it outright. The destruction of improvements I feel is an acceptable side-effect, being that units can pillage them away anyways. Oh well.

*Gets back to modding Aanar's great Europe map*

Let's hope the XP and editor are better than they are now.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Trip
Yes, I was looking for opinions. Not "this is the way things work if you don't agree you're stupid".

Look up "bombard"? Okay, I did.

Definition of "bombard", courtesy of Dictionary.com:

bom·bard Pronunciation Key (bm-bärd, bm-)
tr.v. bom·bard·ed, bom·bard·ing, bom·bards

To attack with bombs, shells, or missiles.

Definition of "missile":

mis·sile Pronunciation Key (msl, -l)
n.

An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.

Hmmm. Can we agree that an arrow is a projectile?

So, we should also count every gunpowder unit as a bombardment unit?

The Civ3 designers obviously weren't using such a broad definition when they designated abilities...

[nato]

Well, giving archers bombard is just an attempt to give combat more variety and interest, using existing tools.

But bombard wasn't intended to represent arrows, so as the Rook points out very well, it is not at all a perfect fit.

Bombarding archers work great in the field against units ... but then they can destroy terrain improvements and hurt units fortified in fortresses, which clearly archers should not be able to do.

So it is just a question of which is more valuable to you:
1. More interesting and maybe even more accurate field combat
or
2. Stricter realism - archers should not be able to destroy terrain improvements and hit units in fortresses

Its a trade off, and each one has a benefit. If bombarding archers adds a lot of fun for you, it is worth the loss of realism in that archers' arrows are now doing things they shouldn't be able to. If super-power-arrows destroys the realism of the game to you, then the extra fun of bombarding archers is not worth it.

So both can be correct.

And to heck with Agincort! Its about to go on my list with Rorke's Drift and Marc Antony culture flipping as annoying aberrations...